United States v. Carlton Samuels, Jr.


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Steven M. Colloton and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4422658-2] motion regarding ineffective assistance of counsel relief, filed by Appellant Mr. Carlton E. Samuels, Jr..; Granting [4421783-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Anita L. Burns. [4486045] [16-2525]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2525 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Carlton E. Samuels, Jr., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 22, 2016 Filed: January 4, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, Carlton Samuels appeals the district court’s1 within-Guidelines sentence. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 16-2525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486045 moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence, and that Samuels received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to object to the 4-level enhancement for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense. Samuels has filed a motion making the same ineffective-assistance argument and a letter arguing that police did not have a proper search warrant when they discovered the firearm. We conclude that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. A sentence within the advisory guideline range is presumed reasonable, see United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014), and the court imposed the sentence after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2009). To the extent Samuels is attempting to assert a Fourth Amendment claim on appeal, his valid guilty plea waived such a claim. See United States v. Arellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court’s application of a four-level increase under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B)) was supported by the evidence. We deny the ineffective-assistance claim, as such claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Samuels’s motion. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-2525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486045

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?